Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
How old am I that I can buy a gun legally in the US?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
"dificult" as a defining word doesnt really define the nature of the function.
The process is a collective process of public opinion.
The Slight Majority of US Voting Citizens do not wish to change Gun laws
it is that simple.
what can be confusing is all the psychopaths & Narcissists trying to find personal glory by manipulating mass shooting events to pander to their own ego's and careers.
Gallup poll from Oct 5 2017:
"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?"
60% more strict
5% less strict
33% kept the same
1% no opinion
So less than a third don't want to change gun laws. Most people do.
States control the age for purchase, usually 18. But I can buy a rifle and hand it to a seven year old girl, no problem.
Gallup poll = 1028 people polled via telephone
Take it with a grain.
We could just do away with elections and let 1028 people contacted via phone determine our political leaders and laws?
On the gripping hand Gallup and it's competitor have to be credible or they lose business. So they take their sampling processes seriously.
Agreed. And since it agrees with other polls on that topic, it's confirmed.
Quinnipac, Oct 2017: Ninety-five percent of voters support universal background checks for gun purchases, including 94 percent of those who live in gun-owning households, according to the latest Quinnipiac University survey.
NPR/Ipsos, Oct 2017: The poll found that a majority (68%) of Americans, regardless of political party, support stricter gun laws.
Pew, Jun 2017: In favor of laws that:
- prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns 89%
- background checks for all gun purchases 84%
- federal database to track gun sales 71%
An election is just a bigger poll.
Outlaw military derived weapons. These are designed to kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible.
For home safety, I believe hand guns are much more effective.
For hunting, firing one shot at a target seems to be what hunters do.
Most Americans favor more regulation of gun purchase and possession than we have now - see polls above.
In the abstract. As a "better world" question.
That is because most Americans are basically sane.
And that majority is an underestimate - research shows that many of those who favor the status quo are misinformed about it, and believe that some restrictions others want are already in place.
Last I looked into it, more than 80% of NRA members favored serious background checks on all rapid fire rifle purchases, for example. But many thought they were already required - no need for new and expanded law.
The problem is twofold:
1) the Republican voting base has no trust in the enforcement of any law by government. They regard all governance as a confidence swindle, all governmental authority as predatory and incompetent by turns, and all voting as a choice between style of incompetent predator.
2) the US media corruption involved in the rise of fascism and its takeover of the Republican Party damages exchange of information between the Republican voting base and the larger community, as well as preventing the acquisition of information by the Rep base from accurate sources in general.
So it's not that lots of opposed Americans don't want gun control. It's that they don't trust the government to control guns. They fear the government more than they fear their gun-owning neighbors.
And in their defense, note that lots of supporting Americans occupy the usually mythical "other side": it's not that they want sensible gun regulation that avoids trampling of Constitutional rights etc, it's that they want the government to step on guns, to get rid of them, by any means necessary. They fear their gun-owning neighbors more than they fear the government.
Now throw in the bribery and corruption of individual politicians by intensely interested and single issue weapons contractors (working through PACs, the NRA, etc) - along with the other corporate backers of the fascist takeover of the Republican Party - and the difficulties become apparent.
Pacifism imo requires God, or supremacy. But that's not a problem . What I do is rule over people emotions with transparent peace of mind (pacifism) and allow them to feel their natures, a taste of their own medicine if you will.
I can turn a pacifist into a rage monster in a few seconds.
In one sense, we are one nation, in another sense, we are a collection of individual states and free people.
In no small part due to col. George Mason, we have a bill of rights amended to our constitution.
Mason saw early on the tendency to tyranny of the federalist (see Massachusetts history-debtors prison and Shays' rebellion) and declared that in good conscience he could not sign the constitution without guarantees of rights of the people and individual states.
This pissed off a lot of people. After 5 long months of arguing and compromise during the constitutional convention of 1787, the "founding fathers" came up with a document much resembling our current constitution. There was a lot of peer pressure to "sign the damned thing and get on with life". Col. Mason refused, and returned to his home.
Fortunately, James Madison saw the wisdom of George Mason's desire to see a declaration of rights as part of the constitution.
By the end of the ratification process, the bill of rights was crafted. Mason and Madison both wanted the rights inserted into the constitution, but settled for the bill of rights to be added as codicils amended to the constitution.
If we are a nation of laws, and wish to remain a nation of laws, then the constitution and amendments is/are a good foundation on which we may proceed.
for the purpose of this thread, see articles 2 and 10 of the bill of rights
Theyre mutually exclusive. Pacifism is the opposite as transgression.
Not necessarily incorrect, but wrong. We are having difficulty with our nation's gun laws because of Scalia, who argued against decades of precedent, that there is an individual constitutional right to own a gun. Before that, the well-regulated militia part meant that we could regulate it in the public interest.
Yep, we borrowed the King's regulations, the rules and regulations for his military, for our own use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Regulations
ergo the tenth
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
We had the right to arms long before the constitution was crafted and ratified.
Bear in mind that Mason believed that a "standing land army" would, most likely, lend it's self to tyranny.
Separate names with a comma.